This study was an evaluation of the Baltimore County
Community-Oriented Drug Enforcement (CODE) Program, which was designed
to introduce community policing approaches to combating drug sales in
local jurisdictions. In particular, the aim of this project was to
assess the effects of the CODE program with respect to citizen
attitudes, crime, and market displacement. The CODE program was
evaluated as it evolved from 1990 (Phase I) through the end of 1991
(Phase II). In Phase I, a total of seven CODE projects in five of the
nine precincts in Baltimore County were funded, and the evaluation
examined four of the seven projects. Under Phase II, seven projects in
six of the precincts were implemented. The Phase II evaluation
examined three of the projects. To measure the effects of the CODE
program on citizen perceptions, surveys of adult residents were
conducted in each of the four target areas during Phase I and in three
target areas during Phase II (Parts 1 and 2). To evaluate the impact
of CODE on crime, court records from the Clerk of Courts were examined
to determine the dispositional outcomes of adults arrested under the
CODE program. In Phase I, burglaries and robberies in each of the four
target areas were compared to those in the remainder of the precincts
(Parts 3-10). These two crime types were chosen because they were
often associated with drug activity. Because of the limited numbers of
burglaries and robberies found in the target areas in Phase I, the
analysis was expanded in Phase II to include Part I index crimes
(Parts 11-14) and Part II crimes, including drug crimes (Parts
15-20). Parts 1 and 2, Community Survey Data, contain variables
concerning victimization experiences, fear of crime, drug sales in the
neighborhood, crime prevention strategies, satisfaction with police,
police visibility, and community organizing before and after the CODE
program was implemented. Demographic variables include age, race,
gender, education, marital status, and employment. Parts 3-20 include
information on offense code, precinct, beat, UCR code, date the crime
was reported, date the crime occurred, disposition, number of victims,
and relationship of victim to suspect. In addition, Parts 11-20
contain street address and ZIP code variables, and Parts 11-14 include
"x" and "y" coordinates.

This study was an evaluation of the Baltimore County
Community-Oriented Drug Enforcement (CODE) Program, which was designed
to introduce community policing approaches to combating drug sales in
local jurisdictions. In particular, the aim of this project was to
assess the effects of the CODE program with respect to citizen
attitudes, crime, and market displacement. The CODE program was
evaluated as it evolved from 1990 (Phase I) through the end of 1991
(Phase II). In Phase I, a total of seven CODE projects in five of the
nine precincts in Baltimore County were funded, and the evaluation
examined four of the seven projects. Under Phase II, seven projects in
six of the precincts were implemented. The Phase II evaluation
examined three of the projects. To measure the effects of the CODE
program on citizen perceptions, surveys of adult residents were
conducted in each of the four target areas during Phase I and in three
target areas during Phase II (Parts 1 and 2). To evaluate the impact
of CODE on crime, court records from the Clerk of Courts were examined
to determine the dispositional outcomes of adults arrested under the
CODE program. In Phase I, burglaries and robberies in each of the four
target areas were compared to those in the remainder of the precincts
(Parts 3-10). These two crime types were chosen because they were
often associated with drug activity. Because of the limited numbers of
burglaries and robberies found in the target areas in Phase I, the
analysis was expanded in Phase II to include Part I index crimes
(Parts 11-14) and Part II crimes, including drug crimes (Parts
15-20). Parts 1 and 2, Community Survey Data, contain variables
concerning victimization experiences, fear of crime, drug sales in the
neighborhood, crime prevention strategies, satisfaction with police,
police visibility, and community organizing before and after the CODE
program was implemented. Demographic variables include age, race,
gender, education, marital status, and employment. Parts 3-20 include
information on offense code, precinct, beat, UCR code, date the crime
was reported, date the crime occurred, disposition, number of victims,
and relationship of victim to suspect. In addition, Parts 11-20
contain street address and ZIP code variables, and Parts 11-14 include
"x" and "y" coordinates.

Access Notes

(1) For Parts 11-20, the column locations found in the
SAS and SPSS data definition statements were created by ICPSR to best
fit the ASCII data files received from the principal investigators.
The original record layouts from the principal investigators are
included in the appendix of the codebook. Although the data definition
statements will read the corresponding data files, there are some
discrepancies for certain variables, especially those named
BLANK. Users should exercise caution when interpreting these data. (2)
The names of the original data files from the principal investigators
for Parts 12 and 18 suggested that these data were from Target Area
4. However, these data correspond to Precinct 1, and the hardcopy
documentation indicates that Target Area 6 was located in Precinct
1. Therefore, ICPSR has renamed these parts Target Area 6. (3) Users
are encouraged to obtain the Phase I and Phase II Final Reports from
the National Institute of Justice for a more complete description of
the CODE Program implementation and evaluation, as well as the
characteristics of each target area. (4) The codebook and data
collection instruments are provided as a Portable Document Format
(PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems
Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as
the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the
Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.

Dataset(s)

This study is currently not available. Please check periodically to see if the status has changed.

Unit of Observation:
For Parts 1 and 2, the unit of observation is the
individual. For Parts 3-20, the unit of observation is the incident.

Universe:
Neighborhoods in Baltimore County targeted by the CODE
program in 1990 and 1991.

Data Type(s):
survey data, and administrative records data

Data Collection Notes:

(1) For Parts 11-20, the column locations found in the
SAS and SPSS data definition statements were created by ICPSR to best
fit the ASCII data files received from the principal investigators.
The original record layouts from the principal investigators are
included in the appendix of the codebook. Although the data definition
statements will read the corresponding data files, there are some
discrepancies for certain variables, especially those named
BLANK. Users should exercise caution when interpreting these data. (2)
The names of the original data files from the principal investigators
for Parts 12 and 18 suggested that these data were from Target Area
4. However, these data correspond to Precinct 1, and the hardcopy
documentation indicates that Target Area 6 was located in Precinct
1. Therefore, ICPSR has renamed these parts Target Area 6. (3) Users
are encouraged to obtain the Phase I and Phase II Final Reports from
the National Institute of Justice for a more complete description of
the CODE Program implementation and evaluation, as well as the
characteristics of each target area. (4) The codebook and data
collection instruments are provided as a Portable Document Format
(PDF) file. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems
Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as
the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the
Acrobat Reader is provided through the ICPSR Website on the Internet.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
Historically, many police departments enforced
laws prohibiting the sale and possession of controlled dangerous
substances through centralized, relatively autonomous vice and
narcotics units. These narcotics units focused on mid- and
upper-level distribution networks to cut off the supplies of drugs at
the lower level. With the advent of cocaine, particularly crack, the
relatively hidden drug transactions between users and low-level drug
dealers evolved into highly visible, potentially violent street-corner
activities. In response, some police departments began experimenting
with problem-oriented or community-oriented approaches to combating
drug sales in their jurisdictions. One such approach was the
Community-Oriented Drug Enforcement (CODE) program implemented by the
Baltimore County, Maryland, Police Department. Through the CODE
program, the police department responded directly to citizen
complaints about street-level drug trafficking in specific targeted
neighborhoods with cooperative efforts between vice/narcotics
detectives and precinct-level officers. Innovative community-oriented
tactics were employed in cooperation with community organizations,
rental management, and others to respond to citizen complaints about
local drug trafficking and to change the conditions thought to
contribute to trafficking. Phase I of the CODE program was implemented
in 1990 and was characterized as generally more decentralized, with
the precincts having the primary responsibility for implementation of
both the traditional enforcement efforts, including raids, and the
community-oriented programs that followed the raids. Phase II of the
CODE program began in 1991 with the establishment of a CODE team
administratively located within the vice/narcotics unit, which
resulted in a more traditional narcotics emphasis. The aim of this
project was to evaluate: (1) how the CODE program was designed and
implemented, (2) how the actual precinct-level target projects were
implemented, and (3) the effects that the CODE program appeared to
have on citizen attitudes, crime, and market displacement.

Study Design:
This program evaluation was based upon a
nonexperimental research design, since controls for confounding
influences through random interventions with control group comparisons
could not be employed. The CODE program was evaluated as it evolved
from 1990 (Phase I) through the end of 1991 (Phase II). In Phase I, a
total of seven CODE projects in five of the nine precincts in
Baltimore County were funded, and the evaluation examined four of the
seven projects. Under Phase II, seven projects in six of the precincts
were implemented. The Phase II evaluation examined only three of the
projects due to the ongoing nature of other projects beyond the
evaluation period, and other research constraints. To measure the
effects of the CODE program on citizen perceptions, surveys of adult
residents were conducted in each of the four target areas during Phase
I and in three target areas during Phase II (Parts 1 and 2). The Phase
I Community Survey consisted only of a post-raid component because of
concerns voiced by the police. Door-to-door surveys were conducted by
the police in the four target areas, and efforts to develop working
relationships between the police and the neighborhood residents and
associations were stressed. Pre-raid surveys were added in Phase II,
but to accommodate the concerns of vice/narcotics command staff and
detectives that the effectiveness of the undercover operations not be
compromised or undercover detectives' safety jeopardized, the Phase II
community surveys were conducted pre- and post-raids by
telephone. Calls to selected households were made at various times of
the morning, afternoon, evening, and weekend days. Staff sought to
interview the same individuals on the post-raid survey that had been
interviewed in the pre-raid surveys. In cases where the pre-raid
interviewee was not available, another adult resident of the household
was surveyed after the raids. To ensure that the survey was
understandable and the items measured what was intended, a large
number of items were used from previous NIJ-supported citizen surveys,
with some modifications to reflect the population
surveyed. Modifications in language and items for the Phase II surveys
were also made based upon staff experience in administering the survey
in Phase I. To evaluate the impact of CODE on crime, court records
from the Clerk of Courts were examined to determine the dispositional
outcomes of adults arrested under the CODE program. In Phase I,
burglaries and robberies in each of the four target areas were
compared to those in the remainder of the precincts (Parts 3-10).
These two crime types were chosen because they were often associated
with drug activity. Because of the limited numbers of burglaries and
robberies found in the target areas in Phase I, the analysis was
expanded in Phase II to include Part I index crimes (Parts 11-14) and
Part II crimes, including drug crimes (Parts 15-20).

Sample:
Selection of the neighborhoods to target was based on the
nature of drug problems within certain neighborhoods, citizen
complaints, and previous experience with certain tactics. For the
Phase I post-raid Community Survey (Part 1), a convenience sample of
approximately 100 households in each target area was selected. During
Phase II (Part 2), a random sample of 100 households in Target Area 5
and 100 households in Target Area 6 was selected, and a random sample
of 150 households was selected for Target Area 7.

Data Source:

Part 1, Phase I Community Survey Data: Personal
interviews. Part 2, Phase II Community Survey Data: Telephone
interviews. Parts 3-20: Crime data provided by the Baltimore County
Police Department Operations Analysis Section, and adjudication and
dispositional data obtained from the Clerk of Courts for Baltimore
County.

Description of Variables:
Parts 1 and 2, Community Survey Data, contain
variables concerning victimization experiences, fear of crime, drug
sales in the neighborhood, crime prevention strategies, satisfaction
with police, police visibility, and community organizing before and
after the CODE program was implemented. Demographic variables include
age, race, gender, education, marital status, and employment. Parts
3-20 include information on offense code, precinct, beat, UCR code,
date the crime was reported, date the crime occurred, disposition,
number of victims, and relationship between victim and suspect. In
addition, Parts 11-20 contain street address and ZIP code variables,
and Parts 11-14 include "x" and "y" coordinates.

Response Rates:
The Phase I post-raid survey (Part 1) sought to
interview approximately 100 households in each target area. The number
of usable surveys obtained was 277, resulting in a response rate of
66.3 percent of all households contacted. For the pre-raid surveys in
Phase II (Part 2), the number of selected telephone numbers in each
target area not interviewed prior to achieving the desired sample size
for each target area was not available. Of the 350 households that
responded to the pre-raid surveys, 62.3 percent also responded to the
post-raid surveys.

Presence of Common Scales:
Several Likert-type scales were used in Parts 1 and 2.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.

Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Restrictions

The data are restricted from general
dissemination. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete
a Data Transfer Agreement Form and specify the reasons for the
request. A copy of the Data Transfer Agreement Form can be requested
by calling 800-999-0960 or 734-647-5000. The Data Transfer Agreement
Form is also available as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file from
the NACJD Web site at
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/Private/private.pdf. Completed
forms should be returned to: Director, National Archive of Criminal
Justice Data, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social
Research, Institute for Social Research, P.O. Box 1248, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248, or by fax: 734-647-8200.

Download Statistics

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).